Marcel, I always try my best to give credit where it is due, and had I known, you would most certainly have been cited. I agree, knowing of your original blog post would have saved much trouble and speculation. Ive also left a comment with The Hockey Schtick, asking him to credit you. By way of compensation, Ive added De staat van het klimaat to the WUWT blog roll. That said, the post did generate quite a bit of discussion, always a good thing. Marcel writes of a guest post by Koutsoyiannis:

A blog post earlier this week about an EGU presentation of Eva Steirou (a researcher in the group of Demetris Koutsoyiannis) on temperature data homogenisation created some stir in the blogosphere after Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit paid attention to it. Koutsoyiannis has now written a guest blog to give some first reactions.

Writing about the complaints that this was a presentation, and not a paper yet, he says:

But we plan to produce a peer-reviewed paper (unless we have made a fatal error, which we hope not) and we keep studying the topic more thoroughly. That is why we think that we are lucky to have received all these comments from the blogs. I did not have the time to read them all, let alone to assimilate them, so I will not provide replies here. From first glance I find most of them very useful, whether they are positive or negative.

But of course these are scientific disagreements and it is fine if scientists disagree. Some arguments, though, fall into other categories, such as arguments from authority or ad hominem. Well, I am familiar with such arguments within scientific transactions, formal (paper reviews) or informal (in blogs), but they are always saddening and also make it necessary to refer to personal information in order to reply.

Koutsoyiannis makes an interesting point about blogs -vs- traditional peer review. Traditional peer review is a slow and arduous process, taking months, sometimes years, and in my opinion is a holdover from a much slower time pre-Internet and email. Usually less than a dozen people are involved in that process. Blog review of papers, presentations, and topics is like an insta-launch, where citizens and scientists alike spar in sometimes a gladiatorial style over broad issues as well as minutiae. Hundreds and often thousands of eyes and minds are brought to bear, often picking the carcass clean of errors until nothing is left.

For all its warts, science blogging has a purpose and a place in todays world. I happen to think that the occasional errors like this one, where by accident, credit wasnt given, actually work to improve things in the long run, because as we all know:

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.